Hacksaw Jim Duggan

Aye the ex rider was tugid I would just be interested to see depth to the comments

No beef at all neither here or there. well done Bartos, I just find it slightly odd people deny the idea anyone might ever cheat at sport when people have been found guilty of it and an ex rider talks about methods of cheating on this forum The flat out “no shut up go away” it’s now been proven it’s not a great method of journalism , there is evidence to show this, dodgy things happen so in sport at high levels, a lot. Again just a general comment

Shame, fans would probably like to know why ex riders talk about cheating but never get to see depth to it.

Is it not slightly scandalous an ex rider can post about known cheating though without any form of question? Re the rest of your post I find it sycophantic bull sh it, I don’t care sorry.

Just leave and if a rider gets it I’d what it is. its refs being pricks they want to cheat riders and hate being made to look daft its inconsistent because it’s bollocks

Why have you never questioned the ex rider who posts on here about his comments on cheating? You seen Icarus? It is great.

Bet you loved Ben Johnson.

An ex rider openly posts on this forum about cheating, can you sit down for a Q and A with them and challenge each other on it.

Ready. Aim. Missile. Fire.

Woffinden is the best rider in the world by miles and miles.

Doyle looking after Woofy, good lad,

Doyle should high elbow his team for that start because that bike was set up to bite as good as it could at the gate, stunning.

Anticipation of the start has always been a really dross rule

This is trash.

I would question that. I think if you are new it does matter to know you are seeing a "someone" who is known to be established and good at a sport. I would say the appeal of a former World Champion is much greater than a journeymen NL rider. As a general rule people aren't silly (this forum though.....) people do know what "good" looks like when it comes to sport, attendances typically reflect that, the better participants do attract the better crowds. In a world where you took a group of people to a game of football who had never attended football before, what appeals more to more "that guy is Leo Messi, he has been pretty much regarded as one of the best players in the world the last 10 years" or "that is Mike he isn't that good really" - while the fame of Doyle is clearly less than Messi that general rule does still apply. RE the general point of creating balance being touched on here. The rule changes speedway has made to build crowds, create balance in teams, water down the product etc hasn't worked because there is an element of false and BS to it and most see through it. Sport is generally about becoming and creating the best to then shot that participant or team down, speedway has spent 20 years trying to remove its self from that, the sport has created a false economy and it is failed one, there is no good, bad, balance in sides and clubs just a really mixed bag of crap with no one knowing what they actually are. There is little wrong with "big clubs" and "small clubs" a club size should generally reflect the local area and population, if the sport had walked that path it would have been OK. Speedway does little to create club mentality, club ethos, club identity I would argue these things offer a greater assistance to attendance than "oh jeez get the clacker and air horn out we just got pumped but what a smashing race, pass me my Wulf Sport jacket I am away for a Bovril",

Speedway has done an excellent job in getting rid of the problem in that case.

Of which there are few... which leads back to what I am saying, the prospect of real racing regardless of who is involved which appeals to true fans is a very niche audience, a small group of people.

It' not snobbish it is an undeniable truth that better riders will produce a better standard of racing. You are advocating watching a couple of pensioners racing around a track has the same appeal as watching World Class athletes at the Olympics...people going around a track the same time close, doesn't always equate to good purely because they are involved in a "race". I meet loads of people who don't give a sh it and want to see the best riders and their team win...there are very few speedway purists these days there for the buzz of a good race no matter the score I mean crowds do reflect that, the sport is on it's arse in this country

You are using instances that are the minority rather than norm, I am not denying what you are saying happens happens, but it hasn't been the typical chosen choice and nor have they chose to move to the National League, the NL has been a rehab league for teams who couldn't get out it quick enough. And the standard of cost paid to a rider without question does lead to a better standard of racing. It's just gibberish to suggest racing is better at National League level, the notion the National League can produce racing the standard of the Final of the GP the other day for instance is hilarious. Awaits YouTube clip...before it is even posted I can state the following - It's slower, it is mistaken ridden, it is technically flawed racing which is why it is a National League and not a Grand Prix race, the National League is poorly attended, there are very, very few "true speedway fans" who simply attend for the love of the race irrespective of who is in that race

And the same fans would moan if the riders turned up and didn't look prepared...

I think the mythology around the NL is one that has been romanticized on this forum to the point people simply ignore reality. You only have to look at the name of the league, the purpose of the league and standard of rider in the league.....a lot of the racing is utterly turgid - sure the occasional race might pop up on YouTube and people think that is evidence that every meeting is an instant classic, but it is complete bollocks. It is also a league that has been in place for years, and years and years in many different forms and never had the crowds to back up what is a feeling from some that it is a standard of racing to bring in a crowd. The vast majority of teams can't get out of it quick enough. It is a league that shows "racing" alone is only a selling point to very, very few. In relation to your point on crowds. I said in my previous post, there will be instances of larger crowds at certain tracks on occasion and yes people will make mention of Glasgow as a Championship side who attract great crowds while also then also completely overlooking that most crowds are rank rotten, as they are at most tracks in the NL. It is the few rather than the majority who attract a better crowd in a lower league, again, hence why most teams typically look to move back up leagues rather than down.

It's hardly ignorance, it is an opinion... I find Ice Hockey, dull, crap and a bit boring and don't really care what fans pay to watch events... it is a totally redundant point to me. As someone with a possible interest in paying to watch or stream a speedway meeting I don't really care about Ice Hockey, that would be www.icehockeyforum.com for that chat. In terms of where it leaves Speedway, I would say most can see speedway is a bit of a mess.

There is clearly though very, very few true fans who simply invest in the idea of great racing regardless of the level of rider . That has always been a comfort blanket fantasy grasped to by some on this forum. If you put a GP on tomorrow at Belle Vue and then a National League Riders Championship the next night..... one of them is getting a much bigger crowd than the other (in circumstance when people could attend sport clearly) "Ahhh but Isle of Wight went NL and ahhh Eastbourne" Clearly there will be exceptions to the rule, but more often than not people have wanted to see and paid to see the better standard of individual as the better individuals do produce better racing. It is racing of a higher quality than for instance 4 guys at NL level going around "close" to each other, most don't equate that to a high standard of racing they want to pay to watch, it is years and years and years and years of evidence now that support this.

He done it on purpose to highlight the point he was making.....

I wouldn't say it is to do with people understanding the cost, as much as it is they don't care how much it costs to produce. Your example of Premier is a decent one, people will look at it and see what they get from Premier, the content, quality and cost they pay and wonder why they should bother with this service when looking at what they pay for that v this service. Your Ice Hockey example, again, no one cares what Ice Hockey matches cost other than people who watch Ice Hockey, it is being mentioned as a decent cost model, Ice Hockey in this country is crap, it isn't really a great model to point at and say "well that is what they do" "ahh well they should care" is a likely reply and maybe people should care, but then you can't change how people feel. The general reaction to the offer a streaming service and cost, it hasn't been great.... I doubt there will be a great uptake.